1. MD. NURUL HUDA (CHAIRMAN). A. Z. Siraj is the first party. The Chief Engineer, Ivan Milutinovic-Pim is the second party. It is the case of the first party that he was appointed a Mechanic on 26-5-1969 on probation under the second party and since then he has been working satisfactorily under the second party, but the service of the first party has been terminated frown 28-1-1970 without requisite notice or wages in lieu of notice as required under subsection (1) of section, 19 of the Standing Orders Act, 1965. The petitioner used to draw Rs. 400.00 per month. After the termination of his service the petitioner submitted a grievance petition. which was receive by the second party on 3-2-1970. But the second party did not reply 2o that. So, the petitioner has filed this application on 2-4-1970 for termination as provided by law.
2. The second party contests the claims of the first party an in their written objection the second party wants to say that the first party is guilty of certain acts which amount to misconduct and there was a regular enquiry by which the petitioner has been found guilty of misconduct and he has been discharged from service. That being so, it is stated that the petitioner is not, entitle to any benefits except to the unpaid salary.
3. Both the Members have advised for giving full termination benefits to the petitioner.
4. Both the parties have filed some papers. The appointment letter of the petitioner shows that he was appointed as a probationer and his probationary period was for 3 months. So, on the expiry of his probationary period the petitioner came to the permanent category. Certain papers filed by the second party show that the petitioner was charged for some acts of indiscipline. There was an enquiry Board. What sort of enquiry was held is not known to us. The Board, however, found the petitioner guilty of in disciplinary habit and disobedience to the orders and instructions of the superiors. The letter by which the services of the petitioner was dispensed with shows that the administration decided to discharge the petitioner for major misconduct. The operative portion of the letter shows that the services of the petitioner have been terminated with effect from 28-1-1970. This letter 'is dated 23-1- 1970. It is at the option of the employer to terminate the services of an employee, even finding a workman guilty of misconduct. In the instant case there is the termination of the services of the petitioner. That being so, the peti--tioner is entitled to claim termination benefits: Admittedly A there was no notice of termination of the services of the petitioner. He is entitled to notice pay and other benefits per--missible by law.
5. Let me note that the enquiry as, conducted has not fully met the ends of justice and even if on the said enquiry, the petitioner had been dismissed that dismissal would not stand the legal scrutiny.
6. Anyway, in this case I am inclined to allow the termination benefits to the petitioner. It is accordingly, ORDERED That the case be allowed on contest. The petitioner does get the following benefits from the second party.
7. Rs:
(1) 3 months' notice pay1,200,00.
(2) Compensation for 14 days186.00.
(3) Unpaid earned leave wages, if any, due.
8. The second party do pay up the above amounts indicated to the first party petitioner within 15 days from the date of this order.